Back
2018 Supreme(Kar) 1033
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA, J.
MR. B.S. Puttaraju, Son Of Sri Shivanna - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka By Special Investigation Team Karnataka Lokayukta Hebbal Bengaluru City Bengaluru 560 064 - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.564 of 2017
C/w.
Criminal Petition No.847 of 2017
Decided On : 01-10-2018
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.379, S.409, S.420, S.447, S.120(b)
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT : S.7(2)(a)
MINES AND MINERALS DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION ACT : S.4(1), S.4(1)(a), S.21, S.23, S.5(1), S.22
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.13(1)(d)
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 2(2) and 482 - Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 - section 7(2A) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 379, 409, 420, 447 read with section 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 - sections 4(1), 5(1) and 4(1)(A) - Cheating and dishonesty - Transfer of mining lease - Whether SIT, Karnataka Lokayukta is authorized to register the FIR and to investigate into alleged offences - Whether allegations made against the petitioners prima facie constitute ingredients of offences alleged against petitioners in FIR - Whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude they cannot be seen in true perspective without sufficient material - Whether uncontroversial allegations as made prima facie establish the offence - Learned counsel for petitioners has referred to proceedings of Government of Karnataka it is specifically mentioned pursuant to orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court Interlocutory Application CBI was permitted to refer matters with reference to exporters who had exported less without valid permits to Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action - learned counsel for petitioners since common investigation was undertaken, total quantity put together would exceed SIT having not been empowered to investigate into alleged offences, investigation conducted by the SIT is illegal on score – Held, Magnitude of transactions and the ramification of offences are required to be unearthed in a thorough and penetrating investigation - On careful consideration of allegations made in the charge-sheet and material produced by respondent before the Court, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with FIR and investigation initiated thereon - Allegations made in the FIR prima facie make out ingredients of the offences alleged therein - SIT is duly authorized and competent to investigate into matter - No prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the alleged violations are investigated by respondent - Petitioners are not shown as accused in the FIR - Exact role played by the petitioners could be ascertained only after investigation - Petitions are dismissed
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. L.M. Chidanandayya, Adv., A/W Smt. Kusuma R. Prasad, Adv., Sri. K.V. Thimmaiah, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri. A.S. Ponnanna, Aag A/W Sri. P. Govindan SPl PP
1. In these petitions, the FIR in Crime No.33/2015 registered by the respondent Special Investigation Team (“SIT” for short) for the offences punishable under sections 379, 409, 420, 447 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under sections 21, 23 read with sections 4(1), 4(1)(A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 is sought to be quashed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.33/2015 after 15 years of rectification of sketch of ML.No.1975 in favour of accused No.4 Sri. B.R. Amar Singh and after 13 years of transfer of mining lease in favour of M/s. Matha Minerals Pvt. Ltd. at the instance of accused No.4 Sri. B.R. Amar Singh without jurisdiction. He further submits that Chapter XX pertaining to M/s. Matha Minerals Pvt. Ltd., was not referred for investigation by SIT by the Government Order dated 22.11.2013. The report pertains to violation of section 5(1) of MMDR Act. No complaint can be filed before the police for undertaking investigation for violation of section 5(1) of the MMDR Act. The offence, if any, under the provisions of the MMDR Act can be presented before the learned Magistrate under section 200 of the Code.
3. It is further contended that the SIT has no jurisdiction to investigate into the alleged illegalities pertaining to the illegal mining and transportation of the quantity of less than 50,000 MT.
4. It is also contended that petitioners in both the petitions are the Directors of M/s. Matha Minerals Private Limited. SIT was constituted to investigate only those matters which are referred by the State Government. The matter pertaining to M/s. Matha Minerals Private Limited is not one of the subjects referred by the State Government for investigation by SIT. Hence, the SIT has no jurisdiction to register FIR against the petitioners.
5. Dilating on the contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the proceedings of the Government of Karnataka dated 22.11.2013 wherein it is specifically mentioned that pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 16.09.2013 in Interlocutory Application No. 189 of WP No. 562/2009, the CBI was permitted to refer the matters with reference to exporters who had exported less than 50,000 MT without valid permits to the Government of Karnataka for taking further necessary action. Accordingly, the Government decided to disband the said investigation team and entrust the investigation to the Hon’ble Lokayukta for further investigation including the issue of illegal export of iron ore less than 50,000 MT.
6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since common investigation was undertaken, the total quantity put together would exceed 50,000 MT. Therefore, the SIT having not been empowered to investigate into the alleged offences, investigation conducted by the SIT is illegal on that score. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in MS MAYAWATHI vs. UNION OF INDIA and Others ((2012) 8 SCC 106) and with reference to paragraph 30, would submit that the SIT having been specifically constituted to investigate into the offences not exceeding 50,000 MT, ought not to have embarked upon investigation exceeding the limits.
7. Further the learned counsel has referred to paragraph 15 of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA and Ors. vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA and Ors ((2013) 8 SCC 154), which reads as under:
15. The first is with regard to investigations in respect of alleged criminal offences by lessees which have been ordered by this Court to be investigated by CBI. As investigations have already been ordered by this Court and such investigations would necessarily have to follow the procedure prescribed by law we do not wish to delve upon the same
